[NLRS] Jan Contest Score

[EAJacobson]

Maybe...

ARRL Field Day, Affiliated Club Competition Changes Announced (Jan 29,
2002) -- The ARRL has adopted rule changes affecting Field Day and the
ARRL-affiliated club competition. The changes were included in the report
of the Membership Services Committee (MSC), presented to the ARRL Board of
Directors at its January meeting in Fort Worth, Texas. (Full Story)

from www.arrl.org  (about four stories down...)

At 07:17 2/1/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Donn Baker wrote:
>> 
>> At 22:36 30-01-02 -0600, Ross Vaagen wrote:
>> > I am not a member of the NLRS, yet.....thinking about it. I
>> > understand that I have to attend 2 meetings. I am thinking
>> > about attending Aurora this year, and if you have a meeting
>> > around the Computer Expo in the fall, I could make that one
>> > too..............
>> 
>> I saw something on the ARRL site in the last couple of days
>> indicating that there are changes in club membership, affiliation,
>> etc., in the works, or maybe already approved.  One of them was
>> that a member didn't have to attend 2 meetings a year... they were
>> in "good standing" in the club if the club said they were.
>
>The following language still appears on the ARRL web page, with
>a last edit date of April 16, 2001.  I hit the browser's refresh
>button to make sure I didn't have a stale copy.
>
>> All members must attend at least 2 club meetings per year to be
>> eligible to submit an entry. (If, however, they have not been a
>> member for a year's time, they must have attended a meeting as
>> a member prior to the contest.)
>>
>> Those club members who are disabled in such a way that they are
>> unable to travel are exempt from the two meetings per year rule
>> but they must be regularly active in club affairs. 
>
>> To be considered bona fide, a member must be active in club affairs.
>
>I also took a look at the "ARRL In Action, What Have We Been
>Up To Lately?" page, but saw nothing there about changing the
>club competition rules.  I don't know where else to look for
>what Donn though he may have seen.  I'm not discounting his
>recollection, just saying I have been unable to confirm it with
>a brief web search. . .
>
>73 de KB0ZEV
>_______________________________________________
>NLRS mailing list
>NLRS@mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
>
>